INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
RIDGEWAY NATIONAL GUARD
MILITARY POLICE INVESTIGATIONS
INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION
spoookdan theburnerphone August 20th 2026 August 24th 2026
INVESTIGATOR-IN-CHARGE ASSIGNED INVESTIGATOR DATE ASSIGNED DATE FINISHED
INITIAL INFORMATION
August 18th 2026 August 18th 2026 Ridgeway National Guard Headquarters
DATE OF INCIDENT DATE OF TIP SUBMISSION LOCATION OF INCIDENT
RDT RealBaconLeaf manman2380
TIMEZONE COMPLAINANT COMPLAINANT CONTACT
SUSPECT(S) & PROPOSED CHARGES
TortaDiver 705060506
SUSPECT #1 ROBLOX ID
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 1 ~ 08/24/2026
3 R.C.C. § 3.01
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
COUNT(S) x1
Whoever kills another—in the course of committing or
attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery,
arson, obstruction, or retaliation; or who is a peace
officer or civil service employee discharging a lawful
duty, with the knowledge that said person is a peace
officer or civil service employee;
with malice aforethought.
2 R.C.C. § 2.15
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
COUNT(S) x1
Whoever, being a public servant, commits an act
relating to their office but constitutes an unauthorized
exercise of their official functions, knowing that such
an act is unauthorized; or refrains from performing a
PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT
24 August 2026 State of Ridgeway v. TortaDiver
DATE WRITTEN IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED CASE
I, theburnerphone, hereby depose and state as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION AND OFFICER BACKGROUND
1. The affiant in this matter is Corporal theburnerphone with the Ridgeway National Guard
(hereinafter “RNG”), posted to the 91st Military Police Investigations Company
(hereinafter “MPI”), and has been so since May 2026. Alongside my employment in the
National Guard, I am currently the Detective Sergeant of the Palmer Police Department’s
Special Investigations Unit, and the Head Investigator of the Law Enforcement Training
Center’s Investigations Office. I was previously a Detective of Internal Affairs and
Lieutenant of the Streets Crime Unit in the Milton City Police Department.
2. I earned a certification from the Law Enforcement Training Centre upon graduating Class
9 in Spring of 2022. I am an officer of the State of Ridgeway who is empowered to
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 2 ~ 08/24/2026
duty which is imposed upon them or which is clearly
inherent in the nature of their office.
4 R.C.C. § 4.01(b)
ARSON IN THE SECOND DEGREE
COUNT(S) x1
Whoever willfully and maliciously set fire to or burns
the personal property of another or sets fire to any
public or private ground surface.
conduct investigations per state law. I have received training in recognising probable
cause.
3. The facts of this affidavit are based on my review of the evidence, my personal
observations, my training and experience, and information obtained from other law
enforcement officers and witnesses. Except as explicitly set forth below, I have not
distinguished in this affidavit between facts of which I have personal knowledge and facts
of which I have hearsay knowledge. This affidavit is intended merely to show that
sufficient probable cause exists and does not set forth all of my knowledge of this matter.
4. I, theburnerphone (the affiant), submit this affidavit in support of a criminal information
alleging that TORTADIVER violated R.C.C § 3.01, § 2.15, and § 4.01(b).
II. SUMMARY OF OFFENSE CONDUCT.
5. On the 18th of August 2026, a tipline was filed with the 1st Platoon of the 91st Military
Police Investigations Company (hereinafter “MPI”) of the Ridgeway National Guard
(hereinafter “RNG”) regarding an incident that took place on the same day. In the
complaint filed by REALBACONLEAF (hereinafter “the victim”), it was alleged that
Corporal TORTADIVER (hereinafter “the defendant”) of the SFOD-B 2110, under the
301st Infantry Brigade, violated state law and the RNG’s Operational Regulations
(hereinafter “OPREGs”).
6. Attached to the report was Exhibit A, which depicts the victim’s point of view of the
incident. Your affiant can make out in this video that the defendant is posted at a
checkpoint on the road leading to the RNG Headquarters. The victim drives towards the
checkpoint, collides with a Military Police vehicle, and proceeds to drive out of the
checkpoint. After the collision, while the vehicle was attempting to drive away, the
defendant emerges from the checkpoint and proceeds to engage the victim’s vehicle (a
Black Gridlock). The victim then, as mentioned, begins driving out of the MEZ; however,
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 3 ~ 08/24/2026
the defendant continues to engage the victim’s vehicle. The defendant then makes it onto
the bridge, where the defendant then burns the victim’s vehicle, and the victim is
subsequently ejected from their vehicle. The victim then begins approaching the
checkpoint to question why the defendant engaged him; however, he is shot dead in the
process.
7. During the course of the defendant’s interview with MPI, IICRYPTIC_LAWMD
(hereinafter “counsel”) acted on behalf of the defendant and provided your affiant with a
recording depicting the defendant’s point of view of the incident. Said recording was
subsequently entered as Exhibit C, and is incorporated into the appendix of evidence by
reference.
8. Exhibit C demonstrates that, at the time the victim’s vehicle collides with the Military
Police vehicle, the defendant is not facing the incident and does not appear to observe the
collision. The defendant reacts to the sound of the collision, turns towards the victim’s
vehicle, and subsequently engages the vehicle with his firearm. Furthermore, your affiant
can establish from Exhibit C that the victim’s vehicle is moving away from the
checkpoint when the defendant begins shooting at the vehicle, and continues to do so as
the vehicle leaves the MEZ. The Military Police vehicle involved in the collision does not
pursue the victim’s vehicle and instead travels in the opposite direction.
9. Exhibit B, the transcript of the defendant’s MPI interview, further establishes to the affiant
the defendant’s position during the incident. It was stated that the defendant acted
according to his training and military law and, when questioned regarding any further
interactions with the victim, it was stated that the victim attempted to speak to the
defendant but that he did not wish to genuinely interact with him. Defence counsel
additionally characterised the victim’s vehicle as a threat and maintained that the
defendant “neutralised the threat”. When MPI questioned why the defendant continued
firing after the victim began attempting to leave the MEZ, defence counsel initially
disputed that the victim had driven away, stating that the vehicle had been disabled by the
collision, before acknowledging that the victim had in fact attempted to drive away but
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 4 ~ 08/24/2026
was unsuccessful. Counsel further relied upon the circumstances surrounding the victim’s
approach to the checkpoint and the concept of the “totality of circumstances” to justify
the defendant’s actions. This assertion is inconsistent with Exhibit C, which demonstrates
that the defendant did not observe the manner in which the victim approached the
checkpoint. The defendant only reacted to the sound of the collision and turned to
observe the Black Gridlock thereafter.
10. The investigation conducted by your affiant subsequently obtained sworn statements from
two guardsmen present at, or near, the checkpoint. Exhibit D, containing the sworn
statement of Sergeant KOLA188, assigned to the 186th Training Battalion of the 127th
Combat Support Brigade, states that the defendant continued firing at the victim’s vehicle
even after the victim was attempting to leave the MEZ. Sergeant KOLA188 stated that he
was “really confused” as to why the defendant continued firing while the victim was
leaving and confirmed that none of the other guardsmen present at the checkpoint
employed lethal force against the victim. Sergeant KOLA188 explained that he did not
employ lethal force because, although the victim’s approach and collision created a
potential threat, the victim had not shot anyone, and was no longer actively posing a
threat once he was leaving the MEZ.
11. Exhibit E, containing the sworn statement of Private First Class NIKOZOOMALT,
assigned to the 1st Infantry Battalion of the 301st Infantry Brigade, provides further
evidence concerning the conduct of the defendant during the incident. Private First Class
NIKOZOOMALT stated that he believed the defendant may have assumed the victim
was going to begin shooting following the collision, or that the victim was associated
with LFA because he had rammed the Military Police vehicle. When asked why he did
not employ lethal force during the encounter, Private First Class NIKOZOOMALT
stated that, in his understanding, lethal force should only be employed where an
individual was actively attempting to ram other guardsmen. His statement therefore
provides further evidence that, from his perspective, the circumstances did not justify the
use of lethal force against the victim.
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 5 ~ 08/24/2026
12. The evidence obtained during these interviews establishes a distinction between the
victim’s initial approach to the checkpoint and his subsequent conduct. While the
collision between the victim’s vehicle and the Military Police vehicle may have created a
potential threat, the available evidence establishes that the defendant did not personally
observe that collision, began engaging the victim only after turning toward the vehicle,
and continued doing so while the vehicle was travelling away from the checkpoint. No
other guardsman at the checkpoint elected to use lethal force during the encounter, with
both Sergeant KOLA188 and Private First Class NIKOZOOMALT providing evidence
that the circumstances did not, in their understanding, justify such force.
13. The subsequent circumstances are likewise material to the offence under consideration.
Following the burning of the victim’s vehicle and the victim’s subsequent ejection from
the vehicle, the victim approached the checkpoint on foot to question the guardsman.
Although the victim was in possession of a firearm at the time, the available evidence
does not presently establish that the victim brandished, drew or otherwise attempted to
employ the firearm against the defendant or any other guardsman. Accordingly, there is
no evidence presently before your affiant establishing that the victim presented an
immediate threat to life at the time lethal force was employed against him, resulting in his
death. 3 R.C.C. § 3.01 Murder in the First Degree provides that a person commits the
offence where they kill another individual, in the course of committing or attempting to
commit, inter alia, arson with malice aforethought. The evidence establishes that the
defendant deliberately deployed a firearm against the victim and that the victim
subsequently died as a result of that use of force. The deliberate nature of the defendant’s
conduct, coupled with the absence of evidence establishing an immediate threat from the
victim at the time of the fatal shooting, provides probable cause to believe that the
defendant acted with malice aforethought. Furthermore, the evidence establishes probable
cause to believe that the killing occurred in the course of the commission of arson,
namely 4 R.C.C. § 4.01(b) Arson in the Second Degree. Exhibits A and B depict the
victim’s vehicle being deliberately set on fire during the continuing encounter between
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 6 ~ 08/24/2026
the defendant and the victim. The burning of the vehicle occurred before the victim’s
subsequent approach to the checkpoint on foot and the fatal use of lethal force against
him. The arson and the subsequent killing therefore form part of the same continuing
sequence of conduct, with the killing occurring after the defendant had deliberately
burned the victim’s vehicle. Accordingly, based upon the totality of circumstances, your
affiant believes there is probable cause to establish that the defendant killed the victim
with malice aforethought while in the course of committing the felony of Arson in the
Second Degree, thereby satisfying the elements of 3 R.C.C. § 3.01 Murder in the First
Degree.
14. 2 R.C.C. § 2.15 Official Misconduct prohibits a public servant from committing an act
relating to their office which constitutes an unauthorised exercise of their official
functions while knowing that such act is unauthorised. At the time of the incident, the
defendant was acting as an RNG guardsman assigned to a checkpoint and was exercising
authority arising from that position. The defendant’s continued engagement of a vehicle
departing the MEZ, followed by the subsequent use of lethal force against the victim on
foot, occurred in circumstances where the other guardsmen present did not consider lethal
force necessary. The sworn testimony of Sergeant KOLA188 and Private First Class
NIKOZOOMALT, together with Exhibits A and C, provides probable cause to believe
that the defendant knowingly exercised his official functions in an unauthorised manner
by employing lethal force in circumstances where such force was not justified under the
applicable OPREGs.
15. Exhibits A and C depict the victim’s Black Gridlock being deliberately set on fire during
the incident. The circumstances surrounding the burning, including its occurrence during
the defendant’s continued engagement of the victim, provide probable cause to believe
that the vehicle was intentionally burned rather than destroyed as an incidental
consequence of the preceding collision. 4 R.C.C. § 4.01(b), Arson in the Second Degree,
provides that a person commits the offence when they willfully and maliciously set fire to
or burn the personal property of another. As the vehicle constituted personal property
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 7 ~ 08/24/2026
belonging to the victim, there is probable cause to believe that the defendant willfully and
maliciously burned the personal property of another, in violation of 4 R.C.C. § 4.01(b).
III. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
16. Your affiant submits the following pieces of evidence into the record:
IV. CONCLUSIONS AS TO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
17. Based on the above facts and circumstances, your affiant believes that probable cause
exists to warrant a Criminal Complaint to be filed against TORTADIVER in violation of:
a) 3 R.C.C. § 3.01 Murder in the First Degree ON 1 Count;
b) 2 R.C.C. § 2.15 Official Misconduct ON 1 Count; and
c) 4 R.C.C. § 4.01(b), Arson in the Second Degree ON 1 Count.
V. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT REQUESTED
18. Based on all the foregoing, I respectfully request a Criminal Complaint to be issued on
TORTADIVER for the charges described in the immediately foregoing section of this
affidavit.
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 8 ~ 08/24/2026
EXHIBIT ID SUMMARY
Exhibit A Recording of the incident (Victim POV)
Exhibit B Recording of the incident (Defendant POV)
Exhibit C Defendant interview w/ MPI
Exhibit D First witness interview w/ MPI (kola188)
Exhibit E Second witness interview w/ MPI (nikozoomalt)
Exhibit F Victim interview w/ MPI
Affiant declares under penalty of perjury that everything stated in this document is true and correct.
Affiant /s/ theburnerphone
Corporal
Ridgeway National Guard
Executed:
08/24/2026
Being authorized to prosecute the offenses charged, I approve this information.
Prosecutor /s/ Wynneboy2010
State Attorney
Ridgeway Department of Justice
Executed:
08/31/26
125-0818-MPI-RNG ~ 9 ~ 08/24/2026
